2002 (10) TMI 560

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri P.K. Jain, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)]. - The issue raised in this appeal is the eligibility of the appellants for small scale exemption under Notifications No. 175/86 and 1/93 in view of the use of the trade name/brand name "Lovejoy" on their products. It is not in dispute that manufacturers affixing the brand name of anot .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... vour of the appellants. The appellants have pointed out that the registration by the appropriate authority sets at rest all doubts about the ownership of the brand name in India. The appellant also pointed out that the foreign company themselves have raised no claim regarding their ownership of this brand name in respect of India. In fact, the impugned order itself had noted this position in Parag .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Counsel for the appellant during the hearing of the case. During the hearing of the case, the learned Counsel also pointed out that this legal position laid down by the Calcutta High Court was followed by the Tribunal in the case of Convertech Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut, 2001 (137) E.L.T. 144, Rajdoot Paints Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi, 2001 (134) E.L.T. 281 etc. 3.&em .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X